¹ AJ XII, 199 ff.; CA 11, 39.

² Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. Applebaum, S., 1959), 82–9Google Scholar; 296–332.

³ Bickermann, E., ‘La charte Séleucide de Jérusalem’, REJ c (1935), 4–35Google Scholar = Bickermann, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History 11 (1980), 44–85Google Scholar.

⁴ Schalit, A., ‘The letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis regarding the establishment of Jewish military colonies in Phrygia and Lydia’, JQR L (1959–1960), 289–318Google Scholar.

⁵ For a survey of the scholarship, which goes back to Protestant-Catholic controversies in the eighteenth century, see Bickermann, E., ‘Une question d'authenticité: les privilèges Juifs’, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philol. et d'Hist. Orient. (Brussels) XIII (1953), 11–34Google Scholar = Studies in Jewish and Christian History 11 (1980), 24–43.

⁶ ‘Sui modi usati da’ Romani nel conservare e pubblicare le leggi ed i senatusconsulti’, Annali dell'Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica xxx (1858), 181–212Google Scholar = Gesammelte Schriften III (1907), 290–313.

⁷ Thus Moehring, H. R. in ‘The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus; a study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography’, in Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Neusner, J. (1975), III, 125–58,Google Scholar exposes the formal features of the acta as in general appropriate to type and period, but proceeds to rest his revival of the case that they are apologetic Jewish forgeries on minor aberrations and corruption in the texts. For a discussion of indices of authenticity and the importance of correct diplomatic formulae, see Bickermann, op. cit. (n. 5), 33 ff.

⁸ On this, see Tcherikover, op. cit. (n. 2), 309 ff. (with a guide to the extensive earlier literature); Applebaum, S., in Compendia Rerum Judaicarum ad Novum Testamentum: the Jewish People in the First Century 1, 1 (1974)Google Scholar, chap. 9; Smallwood, E. M., The Jews under Roman Rule (1976), 124 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Applebaum, loc. cit.; Smallwood, loc. cit.; Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (1978Google Scholar; Hebrew, with English summary).

¹⁰ Juster, J., Les Juifs dans l'empire romain (1914), 1, 132–58Google Scholar; 213 ff. Juster's interpretation is analysed and re-assessed by Rabello, A. M., ‘The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire’, ANRW 11, 13 (1980), 662–762,Google Scholar from which it emerges clearly that the old framework is still widely accepted.

¹¹ op. cit., 217; cf. Smallwood, loc. cit. (n. 8); Grant, M., The Jews in the Roman World (1973), 59Google Scholar; Rabello, op. cit. (n. 10), 692.

¹² On Nicolaus' probable reproduction of the acta, Niese, B., ‘Bemerkungen über die Urkunden bei Josephus' Archaeol. B. XIII. XIV. XVI’, Hermes XI (1876), 466–88;Google ScholarViereck, P., Sermo Graecus (1888), 91 ff.Google Scholar, both of which claim Nicolaus as Josephus' sole source on the subject. For an early rejection of the latter view, see Mendelssohn, , ‘Zu den Urkunden bei Josephus’, Rhein. Mus. XXXII (1877), 249–58Google Scholar. It is accepted by Momigliano (see n. 16), 10 ff. See also Juster, op. cit. (n. 10), 154–5 and nn. A balanced general assessment of Josephus' debt to Nicolaus, in Hebrew: Stern, M., ‘Nicolaus of Damascus as a Source for Jewish History in the Herodian and Hasmonean Periods’, Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (1971), 375–94Google Scholar, and, more briefly, in Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1 (1974), 227–33.

¹³ AJ XIV, 188; 265–7. Moehring, loc. cit. (n. 7), 129–31, rashly rejects this claim with the assertion that no decrees will have survived the conflagration of A.D. 69 (Suet., Vesp. 8). Josephus may well have used local archives in addition: contact with Jews around the Greek world and visits are likely during more than twenty years spent at Rome. On both kinds of archive, see Laqueur, R., Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus (1920), 221–30Google Scholar = Schalit, A. (ed.), Zur Josephus-Forschung (1973), 104–12Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Juster, op. cit. (n. 10), 134–5. The matter in the document, principally concerned with directing a Seleucid monarch to restore Judaean territory, is appropriate to the reign of John Hyrcanus I and wholly inappropriate to the circumstances of Hyrcanus II. On the Hyrcanus I documents see Rajak, T., ‘Roman Intervention in a Seleucid Siege of Jerusalem?’ GRBS XXII, 1 (1981), 65–81Google Scholar, esp. 79.

There is no reason to refer any other documents to the earlier monarch on the basis of the one intrusion in AJ XIV, as T. Reinach does.

¹⁵ It is possible that P. Servilius Isauricus, procos. of Asia in 46 B.C., is referred to, as conjectured by Bergmann. For L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, see MRR 11, 256 and 276: consul in 49 B.C., he left Italy early in the civil war, to recruit troops in Asia for Pompeius, for whom he later fought at Pharsalus: a case of an anti-Caesarian forwarding Jewish claims.

¹⁶ Full discussion in Juster, loc. cit. (n. 10). For an analysis which seeks to relate the material concerning Palestine to the power politics of the period, see Momigliano, A., ‘Ricerche sull'organizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano’, Ann. della Reale Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Lettere, Storia e Filosofia, ser. i, vol. III (1934), 183–221Google Scholar (repr. Amsterdam, 1967).

¹⁷ Judaea: XIV, 200–1; 202–10.

Other parts of Palestine: XIV, 196–8 (decrees about Hyrcanus to be set up at Ascalon); XIV, 323 (Aradus). Phoenicia: XIV, 190–5 (Sidon); 196–8 (Sidon and Tyre); 313 (Tyre); 319–22 (Tyre); 323 (Sidon); XIX, 303–11 (Dora).

Islands: XIV, 213–16 (Delos); 231–2 (Delos); 233 (Cos).

Syria: XIV, 232 (Antioch).

Province of Asia: XIV, 213–16 (Parium—but Paros, following Schürer); 233 (general provision); 225–7 (Ephesus); 235 (Sardis); 238–40 (Ephesus); 241–3 (Laodicea, Tralles); 244–6 (Miletus); (Halicarnassus); 259–61 (Sardis); 262–4 (Ephesus); XVI, 160–1 (Asia); 162–5 (Asia, Ancyra); 166, 167–8 (Ephesus).

Cyrene: XVI, 160–1; 169–70.

Alexandria: XIX, 286–91.

¹⁸ Senatus consulta: XIV, 219–22 (ratifying Caesar's acta).

Communications of governors: XIV, 225–7; 228–9; 230; 233; 234; 235; 237–40; 244–6; XVI, 171; 172–3; XIX, 303–11.

Edicts and letters of Julius Caesar: XIV, 190–5 (letter containing a decree to be set up); 196–8; 199; 200–1; 202–10; 211–12 (speech); 213–16.

Letters of Mark Antony: XIV, 306–13; 214–18; 319–22; 323 (reference only).

Edicts of Emperors: XVI, 162–5 (Augustus); 166 (Augustus); XIX, 280–5; 286–91 (Claudius).

Edicts of M. Agrippa: xvi, 167–8; 169–70.

Decrees of cities: XIV, 231–2 (Delos); XIV, 241–3 (Laodicea); 256–8 (Halicarnassus); 259–61 (Sardis); 262–4 (Ephesus).

¹⁹ Following the Aldine reading: see Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (1966)Google Scholar n. ad loc. Cf. x, 109, for a reference to laws covering only Pontus-Bithynia.

²⁰ Παριανῶν is normally taken to mean the people of Parium, in the Troad. Schürer conjectured Παρίων, to refer to Paros, because dealings with the Jews of Delos are reported in this same document. On the measure, see Smallwood, 135, n. 52.

²¹ See Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 255–9Google Scholar. Unlike other forms of imperial pronouncement, edicts had, in principle, no addressee and were not always merely responses to individual initiatives; if they laid down general rules, these remained in force after the death of their author; none the less, some just gave instructions related to particular circumstances. In the case of the Jews, this factor is acknowledged by Juster, op. cit. (n. 10), 215–18, but does not influence his assessment of the ‘legal’ issues.

²² Which can be dated to 41 B.C., when Antony was regulating the affairs of Asia and raising support in the East.

²³ This document is often dated to A.D. 2–3 by a reference in it to an honorific vote for C. Marcius Censorinus, cos. 8 B.C. and subsequently procos. of Asia, where he died, at the same time as M. Lollius, in A.D. 2. However, his proconsulate is likely to have been a few years earlier: Syme, R., Roman Papers III (1984), 872Google Scholar. Bowersock, G. W., HSCPh LXVIII (1964), 207–8Google Scholar, adopts the date given on the marginal note in the Latin Josephus which has XI beside the trib. pot. of Augustus, and supposes that Censorinus was in the East also in 12 B.C. (not as proconsul). The inscription would be set up at Pergamum (not Ancyra, as suggested in Scaliger's ingenious but unjustified emendation).

²⁴ To be dated within his stay in the East between 17 and 13 B.C., and probably after Nicolaus' pleadings of 14 B.C. One C. Norbanus Flaccus was consul in 38 B.C., the other in 24 B.C., and there is no evidence to show which became proconsul of Asia. The consul of 38 is more often identified with this Flaccus, on the weak grounds that the documents in Philo and Josephus, which refer to Augustus as ‘Caesar’, are seemingly pre-27. For counter-examples, see Smallwood, E. M., Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium ² (1970), 309, n. ad 315Google Scholar. The later consul can be assigned to a vacant governorship of Asia at a date which makes it possible to retain the association of his activities with the appeal of the Jews of Ionia, between 17 and 13 B.C., and is therefore preferable. So Smallwood, loc. cit. (though her chronological argument that Josephus recounts the appeal of the deputations from Asia and Africa after describing the rebuilding of Caesarea is tenuous). Syme, , Roman Papers I (1979), 267Google Scholar, prefers the consul of 28 as the proconsul of Asia, on the grounds of Augustus' titulature in Josephus' edicts.

²⁵ See above, n. 12.

²⁶ P. Land. 1912 = CPJ II, No. 153, I. 87.

²⁷ CPJ II, No. 153, nn. ad 82–8, p. 49.

²⁸ In the edict the Jews are Ἀλεξανδρεἶς (an official designation for citizens) and had ὐση πολιτία with the Alexandrians; in the letter, they are said to dwell ‘in a city not their own’. See CPJ I, 70, n. 45.

²⁹ CPJ I, loc. cit., ‘parts of the edict which are in accordance with the letter are to be regarded as authentic; those that are in direct contradiction are to be looked upon as forged and so should be disregarded’.

³⁰ Petronius' edict twice alludes to Augustus: to an edict from him (307) and to privileges granted by him (311). The legate's knowledge evidently derives from Claudius' edict, and he overvalues the Augustan example offered there.

³¹ The formula also occurs earliest in modified or weakened forms, especially in the subordinate clause κατὰ τὰ πάτρια αὐτῶν ἔθη.

³² Yet this is contradicted by his interpretation of the liberty of worship clause as a universal edict of toleration. An edict of toleration requires identifiable prescriptions.

³³ Military exemption: XIV, 223 (Asia); 226 (the same decision, Ephesus); 228 (Ephesus); 230 (Asia, Ephesus); 234 (Ephesus); 236, 237–40 (Ephesus). Cf. Rabello, op. cit. (n. 10), 741, n. 320. That this exemption was sought in some cases does not mean that Jews found it contrary to religious prescription to serve under any circumstances.

³¹ Freedom of worship, collection and Sabbath observance; XIV, 216 (Parium and Delos—assembling and feasting); 235 (Sardis—meeting and market place); 242 (Laodicea, Tralles); 244–6 (Miletus—Sabbath, rites and food); 259–61 (Sardis); 262–4 (Ephesus—sacred funds, Sabbath, etc.); XVI, 162–5 (Sabbath, sacred funds); 167–8 (Sabbath, sacred funds); 169–70 (sacred funds); 171 (sacred funds); 172–3. Another privilege is exemption from having troops billeted or for paying for this.

³⁵ At a later date, archaeological evidence suggests that the Jews had a prominent place there. See A. T. Kraabel, most conveniently in ANRW II, 19, 1 (1979), 83–8.

³⁶ See now Millar, F., ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian; Obligations, Excuses and Status’, JRS LXXIII (1983)Google Scholar, especially 77–8, for valuable remarks on the operation of centrally-granted beneficia.

³⁷ For reconstructions of these events (which have to derive almost exclusively from the narrative of Josephus' Antiquities) see Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. G. Vermes and F. Millar, I (1973), 267–76Google Scholar; Smallwood, op. cit. (n. 8), 30–43. On Caesar rewarding Hyrcanus and the Jews' εὔνοια to him, see AJ XIV, 212. At 216, the εὔνοια and ἀρετή are ascribed to the Jews alone, but Hyrcanus is perhaps alluded to (as well as Jewish assistance to Caesar at Alexandria).

³⁸ According to Josephus' text, Hyrcanus personally is here party to the alliance, not the Jewish people, as Smallwood, op. cit. (n. 8), 42, suggests.

³⁹ The first series of Hyrcanus documents, deriving from Julius Caesar himself, concerns concessions to Palestine; but the Herodian king remains almost as prominent in the Diaspora transactions.

⁴⁰ MRR II, 317 and 344: he took Syria as a consular province, but, in Asia, killed C. Trebonius, and on reaching his province was cornered by Cassius.

⁴¹ Juster, op. cit. (n. 10), 142–4, distinguishes a series of several Asian documents dependent upon Lentulus' original exemption edict, including the Sardis decision, which contains different privileges, but perhaps comes as a consequence; this would explain why it is sandwiched between exemption decrees in Josephus.

⁴² Reynolds, J. M., Aphrodisias and Rome (1982), nos. 10–12Google Scholar.

⁴³ As an instance of such ties, consider the personal life of the historian Josephus, who married first a Palestinian captive, then a Jewess from Alexandria, and lastly one from Crete (V, 414–15; 426–7).

⁴⁴ The proconsul's name in the MSS is C. Rabellius son of Gaius; the emendation Rabirius is perhaps desirable, but still does not yield a known official in the province. There is no apparent way of dating the document.

⁴⁵ This time he is the P. Servilius Galba of n. 15 above. This letter must not be taken with the Pergamene decree which follows it directly.

⁴⁶ On the difficulty of imposing sanctions in this kind of situation, Juster, op. cit. (n. 10), 238–9.

⁴⁷ For the vocabulary of rights, privileges and concessions, see Juster's valuable list: 222, n. 2. Josephus' distinctions are not rigorous—rights are termed privileges if the stress is on their coming from a donor.

⁴⁸ For remarks on Josephus as defender of the Jews of the Diaspora in the 80s and 90s, see Rajak, T., Josephus: the Historian and his Society (1983)Google Scholar, Epilogue. A study of the apologetic thrust in Josephus' later writings is wanting.

⁴⁹ See Momigliano, A., ‘Eastern Elements in Post-Exilic Jewish, and Greek, Historiography’ = Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (1977), 31–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Ezra I, 2–4; 4, 9–22; 5, 8–17; 6, 3–12; 7, 12–26; I Mace. 8, 23–30 (alliance with Rome); 10, 18–20; 26–45; 11, 30–37; 13, 36–40; 40, 20–23 (letter from Sparta); 27–47 (inscription put up by the Jews); 15, 1–9; 16–21 (letter from the Romans); II Mace. 9, 19–27; II, 17–39 (letters of Antiochus and of the Romans). Some of these documents are authentic, others patently falsified.

⁵¹ Especially Cohen, S. J. D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian (1979)Google Scholar.

⁵² So e.g. Smallwood, op. cit. (n. 8), 123–4; Sherwin-White, A. N., Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (1967), 93Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Romans and Aliens (1979), 67Google Scholar; Pucci, M., La rivolta ebraica al tempo di Traiano (1981), 15Google Scholar.

⁵³ 213 f.

⁵⁴ CA I, 43; II, 219; 233. Josephus appears to speak of martyrdoms for the Law within living memory. And, whatever these were, his strong interest in the matter shows it to have active significance for him in this polemical work.